P L D 1990 Lahore 297 (PLP)

The facts leading to this appeal, briefly, are that Muhammad Irfan Khan, respondent, filed a suit for the recovery of Rs. 1,25,(W on the basis of a pronote against Matloob‑ur‑Rehman Khan, petitioner, in the Court of learned District Judge, Lahore. The suit was entrusted to the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore. Before the application of the defendant/petitioner for permission to defend the suit, could be decided, he moved application for deciding the suit on oath and for summoning the plaintiff to take oath on Holy Quran. The plaintiff was summoned accordingly. On 30‑5‑1989, Matloob‑ur‑Rchman Khan defendant/petitioner made following statement before the Court On this, Muhammad Irfan Khan plaintiff made following statement on the Holy Qur'an:‑‑ In view of the statements made by the parties, the trial Court passed following orders:‑‑ Pursuant to the aforesaid judgment dated 30‑5‑1989, a decree sheet was prepared in which amount of decree was mentioned as Rs. One lac only. Feeling aggrieved, Matloob‑ur‑Rehman Khan decree‑holder riled application under section 152, CPC before the trial Court on 12‑6‑1989, stating that although his suit for recovery of Rs. 1,25,000 was decreed, yet due to clerical mistake and accidental slip, only rupees one lac was incorporated in the decree sheet. After hearing the parties, the trial Court vide its order dated 17‑7‑1989, accepted the application and the decree sheet was ordered to he corrected showing Rs.1,25,000 as decretal amount. The decree sheet was corrected accordingly. Hence this appeal.

2. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that after signing the judgment and the decree sheet in which Rs. one lac only was incorporated as decretal amount, the trial Court had become functus officio and could not have increased the amount from Rs. one lac to Rs. one lac and twenty five thousand. The learned counsel for the respondent has supported the judgment of the trial Court.

3. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I do not feel persuaded to agree with the learned counsel for the appellant. I find that the suit of the plaintiff/respondent was for Rs. 1,25,

000. Rupees one lac was claimed as loan and rupees twenty five thousand as interest/profit. In his statement reproduced above, Matloob‑ur‑Rebman Khan defendant has clearly stated:‑‑ In its judgment dated 30‑5‑1989, the trial Court has clearly stated that:‑‑ In his statement before the Court, the defendant/appellant has not stated that on the taking of the proposed oath, the suit to the extent of rupees one lac only be decreed. In the judgment the trial Court has not stated that the suit of the plaintiff was decreed to the extent of rupees one lac only. On the other hand, it has categorically stated that:‑‑ It is thus very much clear that while directing that an amount of Rs. 1,25,000 be shown as a decretal amount in the decree sheet, the learned trial Court has not enhanced the decretal amount and has simply corrected the clerical mistake committed in the preparation of the decree sheet. The trial Court possesses the implied and inherent power to nullify the effect of inadvertent or unconscious acts Or omissions. A clerical error is an error which can only be explained by considering it to be a slip, mistake or omission on the part of the person who, prepares the decree sheet. In the instant case, the suit for Rs. 1,25,000 was decreed, therefore, the error of incorporating Rs. one lac only, instead of Rs. one lac and twenty‑five thousand, was very much apparent from the record. It is well settled that the judgment and decree should not differ. I feel that under the provisions of sections 151 and 152, PPC, the trial Court was well within its authority to correct the decretal amount wrongly incorporated in the decree sheet in order to bring it in conformity with the judgment.

4. Pursuant to the above discussion, the appeal fails and is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. M.B.A./M‑2052/L Appeal dismissed.